jhr
Well-known member
You are correct; but you'll never get a Scotsman to believe that! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Who or What should I believe?
- Thread starter TheBoatman
- Start date
jimi
Well-known member
You are a very confused person.
1) Take the total tax burden not just direct taxation.
2) Tax is not equal to value for money how you spend it is.
Value for money equates with spending efficiency ... ie what do I get per unit spent.
Take one example public transport (I hear you say thats private sector .. well its not)
A commute trip for me costs £30/d. In the Netherlands a similar trip is under £10 and the trains are faster, more frequent and run to time.
Take some other examples:
Do you know that what the refurbishment costs of public premises has been.
eg Hilary Benn's department refurbisment cost v. Aid given
How much money has been wasted on IT projects?
What is the increase in public administrators between now and when labour took office?
And I'm not even going to start on defenceWe've got no vision no inrastructure strategy.
Oh and check our GDP per capita compared to our Eropean neighbours
1) Take the total tax burden not just direct taxation.
2) Tax is not equal to value for money how you spend it is.
Value for money equates with spending efficiency ... ie what do I get per unit spent.
Take one example public transport (I hear you say thats private sector .. well its not)
A commute trip for me costs £30/d. In the Netherlands a similar trip is under £10 and the trains are faster, more frequent and run to time.
Take some other examples:
Do you know that what the refurbishment costs of public premises has been.
eg Hilary Benn's department refurbisment cost v. Aid given
How much money has been wasted on IT projects?
What is the increase in public administrators between now and when labour took office?
And I'm not even going to start on defenceWe've got no vision no inrastructure strategy.
Oh and check our GDP per capita compared to our Eropean neighbours
AlexL
Member
The 'specialists' I saw all did the same thing- said yes you need an operation. Basically the NHS spent four times as much money as they needed to prevent my name getting on a "more than 6 month wait list" - thats the wastage that everybodys talking about. Even the NHS themselves admit to wasting about 10 billion quid a year - I bet I've a proper buisnessman from the private sector looked at it - it would be alot more than that! Anyway I can see we'll have to agree to disagree on this one!
Anyway the bottom line is that me and many other 'middle england' people who are paying all the tax are going to be working and living and paying tax in australia, canada, US, far east etc in a few years time - and then we'll see just how the public sector support themselves then. Personally I couldn't give a hoot - because I won't be living here.
And BTW our tax burden is comparably very high. (tax receipts as a % of GDP) we compare ourselves against some countries in europe but in they are also very high)
I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree on this so this is my last word on this one.
Anyway the bottom line is that me and many other 'middle england' people who are paying all the tax are going to be working and living and paying tax in australia, canada, US, far east etc in a few years time - and then we'll see just how the public sector support themselves then. Personally I couldn't give a hoot - because I won't be living here.
And BTW our tax burden is comparably very high. (tax receipts as a % of GDP) we compare ourselves against some countries in europe but in they are also very high)
I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree on this so this is my last word on this one.
Stingo
Well-known member
Who are you BustinAround? If you don't stop hiding behind an effectively blank profile, I am going start accusing you of being one of TB's KGB
Sgeir
Well-known member
I tend to agree with BustinAround. It's just too simple just to blame Blair and Brown. In the interests of balance, I believe that the pensions rot started long before them.
For example, in 1980 Margaret Thatcher ended the state pensions link with earnings inflation, thus effectively cutting state pensions (and allowing tax cuts).
In 1987, again under Thatcher, companies were forced to take "pension holidays" (ie most employees still paid into the pot, but some companies didn't) because of taxation changes.
Later, in 1992 Norman Lamont launched the first tax raid on pensions, cutting dividend tax relief in two stages from 25% to 20%. And the rest is history.
Despite the main parties having some very clever and knowledgeable people in them, I think neither have really taken the advice of their pensions experts.
Ongoing mortality improvements mean that the actuarial assumptions have to be re-assessed. Poor management has also allowed some schemes to collapse. To be fair, the pension protection fund etc is designed to improve protection for schemes, but nobody really believes that it will be the whole answer.
Maybe we should look at the example of the Irish Republic where they are now preparing for their demographic problem - in 20 years time. Rather than just wait for it to happen, they are now allocating, through extra taxation, 1% pa of GNP into a stand-alone fund that will be independently and transparantly managed. The idea is to let this fund accrue in order to meet the needs of the future. That is strategic planning (despite a continuing Shufflebum predeliction for 'daft Paddy' jokes).
Would it work in the UK? Might be a bit late, but worth a try, although I can hear all the cries of pain already.
FWIIW, I do not see people voluntarily saving more for retirement than at the present. That's not the fault of any party or government, but one that the pols need to address. Compulsion and tax raises are inevitable IMHO.
For example, in 1980 Margaret Thatcher ended the state pensions link with earnings inflation, thus effectively cutting state pensions (and allowing tax cuts).
In 1987, again under Thatcher, companies were forced to take "pension holidays" (ie most employees still paid into the pot, but some companies didn't) because of taxation changes.
Later, in 1992 Norman Lamont launched the first tax raid on pensions, cutting dividend tax relief in two stages from 25% to 20%. And the rest is history.
Despite the main parties having some very clever and knowledgeable people in them, I think neither have really taken the advice of their pensions experts.
Ongoing mortality improvements mean that the actuarial assumptions have to be re-assessed. Poor management has also allowed some schemes to collapse. To be fair, the pension protection fund etc is designed to improve protection for schemes, but nobody really believes that it will be the whole answer.
Maybe we should look at the example of the Irish Republic where they are now preparing for their demographic problem - in 20 years time. Rather than just wait for it to happen, they are now allocating, through extra taxation, 1% pa of GNP into a stand-alone fund that will be independently and transparantly managed. The idea is to let this fund accrue in order to meet the needs of the future. That is strategic planning (despite a continuing Shufflebum predeliction for 'daft Paddy' jokes).
Would it work in the UK? Might be a bit late, but worth a try, although I can hear all the cries of pain already.
FWIIW, I do not see people voluntarily saving more for retirement than at the present. That's not the fault of any party or government, but one that the pols need to address. Compulsion and tax raises are inevitable IMHO.
jimi
Well-known member
Re pension commitments
The biggest employer in the world is the NHS
what is their pension commitment alone? What is it based on, when do they retire?
That illustrates our pension problem perfectly!
We actually have a pension Ombudsman in out midst .. I await with trepidation the reams of bandwidth his musings on this subject will devour!
The biggest employer in the world is the NHS
what is their pension commitment alone? What is it based on, when do they retire?
That illustrates our pension problem perfectly!
We actually have a pension Ombudsman in out midst .. I await with trepidation the reams of bandwidth his musings on this subject will devour!
BustinAround
New member
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-074.pdf
I am not confused, you are ill informed. I HAVE taken the total tax burden. In case you can't be bothered to hunt through that paper, it says that our tax burden (based on as % of GDP, not direct taxation) is 4% lower than the average for the 15 original EU countries.
You can't compare us to the countries like the US, because they don't have any public services.
The reason that IT projects fail is something that you can spend your whole life researching.
Saying that public transport is better in the Netherlands doesn't help your argument, because on average for the last 25 years they've been taxed (as a % of GDP) 5% higher than us.
What has GDP per capita got to do with this debate?
I am not confused, you are ill informed. I HAVE taken the total tax burden. In case you can't be bothered to hunt through that paper, it says that our tax burden (based on as % of GDP, not direct taxation) is 4% lower than the average for the 15 original EU countries.
You can't compare us to the countries like the US, because they don't have any public services.
The reason that IT projects fail is something that you can spend your whole life researching.
Saying that public transport is better in the Netherlands doesn't help your argument, because on average for the last 25 years they've been taxed (as a % of GDP) 5% higher than us.
What has GDP per capita got to do with this debate?
jimi
Well-known member
Several errors here mate.
I did'nt say we had a lower tax burden than our neighbours.. but that our tax burden had increased under labour.
I do'nt mind tax if its spent wisely, ours is not and the rate of waste is increasing
GDP / Capita (and its direction and rate of change) is a measure of how well off we are.
Do some comaparisons with France,Italy & Ireland
I did'nt say we had a lower tax burden than our neighbours.. but that our tax burden had increased under labour.
I do'nt mind tax if its spent wisely, ours is not and the rate of waste is increasing
GDP / Capita (and its direction and rate of change) is a measure of how well off we are.
Do some comaparisons with France,Italy & Ireland
marina95
Member
[ QUOTE ]
Who are you BustinAround? If you don't stop hiding behind an effectively blank profile, I am going start accusing you of being one of TB's KGB
[/ QUOTE ]
Stingo, thats where I was headed. Troll?
Who are you BustinAround? If you don't stop hiding behind an effectively blank profile, I am going start accusing you of being one of TB's KGB
[/ QUOTE ]
Stingo, thats where I was headed. Troll?
BustinAround
New member
"I did'nt say we had a lower tax burden than our neighbours"
No, I did, and you disagreed by telling me to look at total tax burden not just direct taxation. I quote:
>You are a very confused person.
>1) Take the total tax burden not just direct taxation.
"our tax burden had increased under labour."
It has, but its still 4% lower than the average for the original EU countries. Like I said, the dutch have been taxed 5% more for at least the past 25 years, so its not suprising that their public services are better.
"the rate of waste is increasing"
I've backed all my arguments up with figures and their sources, have you actually got any evidence that this is the case?
"GDP / Capita (and its direction and rate of change) is a measure of how well off we are.
Do some comaparisons with France,Italy & Ireland"
We have had lower GDP per capita than most of the western european countries since the 70's, so you can't blame the current government. I am under the impression that since 1997 the gap has been closing, but I'll have to find you some sources for that later.
No, I did, and you disagreed by telling me to look at total tax burden not just direct taxation. I quote:
>You are a very confused person.
>1) Take the total tax burden not just direct taxation.
"our tax burden had increased under labour."
It has, but its still 4% lower than the average for the original EU countries. Like I said, the dutch have been taxed 5% more for at least the past 25 years, so its not suprising that their public services are better.
"the rate of waste is increasing"
I've backed all my arguments up with figures and their sources, have you actually got any evidence that this is the case?
"GDP / Capita (and its direction and rate of change) is a measure of how well off we are.
Do some comaparisons with France,Italy & Ireland"
We have had lower GDP per capita than most of the western european countries since the 70's, so you can't blame the current government. I am under the impression that since 1997 the gap has been closing, but I'll have to find you some sources for that later.
BustinAround
New member
Give me a break fellas, I'm supporting everything I say with facts and figures, so you don't need to trust me, you can look it all up yourselves.
I don't see why a blank profile is a reason to ignore what I'm saying to be honest.
I don't see why a blank profile is a reason to ignore what I'm saying to be honest.
Stingo
Well-known member
You sound like a politician and as the saying goes about politicians; if his lips are moving, he's lying.
BustinAround
New member
Well I'm not, I work in IT in the city.
I just don't see the point in filling in a profile, or looking at profiles.
Filling in a respectable profile about how I help distraught kittens and I enjoy kite flying wouldn't change the fact that I'm genghis kahn would it?? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
So when you don't have a comeback to what I say, you attack my credibility? Who's the politician??
I just don't see the point in filling in a profile, or looking at profiles.
Filling in a respectable profile about how I help distraught kittens and I enjoy kite flying wouldn't change the fact that I'm genghis kahn would it?? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
So when you don't have a comeback to what I say, you attack my credibility? Who's the politician??
Sgeir
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest employer in the world is the NHS.... what is their pension commitment alone? What is it based on, when do they retire?
[/ QUOTE ]
Other than what's been in the press lately, I know nothing about the NHS scheme - but I assume it's a defined benefit final salary scheme. Most DB schemes are funded by the employee (typically 6% of salary), and the employer (ideally around 9%, but very often 15-18%). It is fair to regard the investments of DB schemes and the pensions that accrue as deferred income.
Some schemes are/were 'unfunded' and had to be paid by the employer (usually government) out of current revenue. Personally I strongly support the concept of jointly funded DB schemes, that are properly managed, and are transparent. There are positive social and employer/employee benefits.
[ QUOTE ]
That illustrates our pension problem perfectly!
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm clearly missing your point here. There is nothing wrong with a DB scheme, although there is debate as to whether average salary schemes have any advantage. In any case, until recently, most schemes were DB. There has been a move away from DB schemes owing to the problems outlined above, ie additional taxation, limits and tax penalties on actuarial funding levels, as well as demographic changes. In the final analysis, a shortfall in a DB should be funded by the employer.
As well as reducing the employer's rate of pension contribution, the move from DB to DC schemes puts all of the the market risks on to the individual ie their pension is totally dependent on the market value of their portfolio.
There is little doubt that the present arrangements will store up huge problems in the future, particularly for a younger generation who either are
1 not able to join either a DB or a DC scheme ie self-employed/unemployed etc;
2 cannot afford to, or choose not to join (seem to be more of them nowadays), where a DB or a DC scheme is available; or,
3 cannot afford to, or choose not to, take out a stakeholder pension or a SIPP.
"Lifestyle" issues are pushing up house prices and building up ridiculous amounts of personal debt, in a country where growing numbers of people seem not to be saving or investing in their future. Which is is why I favour compulsion. Also why I believe that the UK can learn from the Irish experience (see above).
[ QUOTE ]
We actually have a pension Ombudsman in out midst .. I await with trepidation the reams of bandwidth his musings on this subject will devour!
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
The biggest employer in the world is the NHS.... what is their pension commitment alone? What is it based on, when do they retire?
[/ QUOTE ]
Other than what's been in the press lately, I know nothing about the NHS scheme - but I assume it's a defined benefit final salary scheme. Most DB schemes are funded by the employee (typically 6% of salary), and the employer (ideally around 9%, but very often 15-18%). It is fair to regard the investments of DB schemes and the pensions that accrue as deferred income.
Some schemes are/were 'unfunded' and had to be paid by the employer (usually government) out of current revenue. Personally I strongly support the concept of jointly funded DB schemes, that are properly managed, and are transparent. There are positive social and employer/employee benefits.
[ QUOTE ]
That illustrates our pension problem perfectly!
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm clearly missing your point here. There is nothing wrong with a DB scheme, although there is debate as to whether average salary schemes have any advantage. In any case, until recently, most schemes were DB. There has been a move away from DB schemes owing to the problems outlined above, ie additional taxation, limits and tax penalties on actuarial funding levels, as well as demographic changes. In the final analysis, a shortfall in a DB should be funded by the employer.
As well as reducing the employer's rate of pension contribution, the move from DB to DC schemes puts all of the the market risks on to the individual ie their pension is totally dependent on the market value of their portfolio.
There is little doubt that the present arrangements will store up huge problems in the future, particularly for a younger generation who either are
1 not able to join either a DB or a DC scheme ie self-employed/unemployed etc;
2 cannot afford to, or choose not to join (seem to be more of them nowadays), where a DB or a DC scheme is available; or,
3 cannot afford to, or choose not to, take out a stakeholder pension or a SIPP.
"Lifestyle" issues are pushing up house prices and building up ridiculous amounts of personal debt, in a country where growing numbers of people seem not to be saving or investing in their future. Which is is why I favour compulsion. Also why I believe that the UK can learn from the Irish experience (see above).
[ QUOTE ]
We actually have a pension Ombudsman in out midst .. I await with trepidation the reams of bandwidth his musings on this subject will devour!
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
jimi
Well-known member
>1) Take the total tax burden not just direct taxation.
Several things .. local taxes ARE tax but are not incl in whitehall comparisons . why do you think they move cost to local govt?
Corporation Tax .. is included in direct tax and has a significant effect on direct tax ratios.
30% UK
32% Germany
34% France & Italy
34.5 Netherlands
Perhaps the apparent lower tax burden is more relevant to companies than individuals?
"our tax burden had increased under labour."
It has, but its still 4% lower than the average for the original EU countries. Like I said, the dutch have been taxed 5% more for at least the past 25 years, so its not suprising that their public services are better.
Because of comparative anomalies it is the diection and rate of change that is relevant. Smaller countries do have certain threshold costs so better to compare nations of similar sizes. Anyway who's better off .. a nation with free tertiary education, susidised efficient public transport or a nation with a slightly lower rate and none of the above?
"the rate of waste is increasing"
I've backed all my arguments up with figures and their sources, have you actually got any evidence that this is the case?
Yes .. compare ratio of administrators to frontline staff in education and the NHS
"GDP / Capita (and its direction and rate of change) is a measure of how well off we are.
Do some comaparisons with France,Italy & Ireland"
We have had lower GDP per capita than most of the western european countries since the 70's, so you can't blame the current government. I am under the impression that since 1997 the gap has been closing, but I'll have to find you some sources for that later.
My research says that the gap is widening. And if you look at productivity the gap is widening further.
Several things .. local taxes ARE tax but are not incl in whitehall comparisons . why do you think they move cost to local govt?
Corporation Tax .. is included in direct tax and has a significant effect on direct tax ratios.
30% UK
32% Germany
34% France & Italy
34.5 Netherlands
Perhaps the apparent lower tax burden is more relevant to companies than individuals?
"our tax burden had increased under labour."
It has, but its still 4% lower than the average for the original EU countries. Like I said, the dutch have been taxed 5% more for at least the past 25 years, so its not suprising that their public services are better.
Because of comparative anomalies it is the diection and rate of change that is relevant. Smaller countries do have certain threshold costs so better to compare nations of similar sizes. Anyway who's better off .. a nation with free tertiary education, susidised efficient public transport or a nation with a slightly lower rate and none of the above?
"the rate of waste is increasing"
I've backed all my arguments up with figures and their sources, have you actually got any evidence that this is the case?
Yes .. compare ratio of administrators to frontline staff in education and the NHS
"GDP / Capita (and its direction and rate of change) is a measure of how well off we are.
Do some comaparisons with France,Italy & Ireland"
We have had lower GDP per capita than most of the western european countries since the 70's, so you can't blame the current government. I am under the impression that since 1997 the gap has been closing, but I'll have to find you some sources for that later.
My research says that the gap is widening. And if you look at productivity the gap is widening further.
Bergman
New member
Err not quite
Apparently the Chinese army and the Indian Railways both employ more people.
And probably are more efficient.
I could never understand why the British people are so sickly that we need to employ so many people to keep us alive
Apparently the Chinese army and the Indian Railways both employ more people.
And probably are more efficient.
I could never understand why the British people are so sickly that we need to employ so many people to keep us alive
jimi
Well-known member
As I understand it, the money for the pensionsof thos currently employed in the NHS has not been stuffed under the mattress to provide a future pension will be paid out of future taxes, ie A greater and greater number of retirees will have to be supported by a smaller and smaller number of workers.
BustinAround
New member
[ QUOTE ]
>1) Take the total tax burden not just direct taxation.
Several things .. local taxes ARE tax but are not incl in whitehall comparisons . why do you think they move cost to local govt?
Corporation Tax .. is included in direct tax and has a significant effect on direct tax ratios.
30% UK
32% Germany
34% France & Italy
34.5 Netherlands
Perhaps the apparent lower tax burden is more relevant to companies than individuals?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's very difficult to measure indirect taxation, because it depends very much on the lifestyle of the individual. Indirect taxation (ie including local taxes) can't even be compared using the "hypothetical household". The lower tax burden is definitely not down to just corporation tax because those countries have higher income tax. They also have the same type of "local tax" structure that we do.
[ QUOTE ]
Because of comparative anomalies it is the diection and rate of change that is relevant. Smaller countries do have certain threshold costs so better to compare nations of similar sizes. Anyway who's better off .. a nation with free tertiary education, susidised efficient public transport or a nation with a slightly lower rate and none of the above?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see why direction and rate of change is more important than the actual level. Why does it matter that some of the countries with a higher tax burden are smaller? Yes, there probably are threshold expenses, but we have a lower tax burden than countries that are bigger than us too. Ireland is much smaller, yet it has a much lower tax burden, so I don't see your point.
Fact is, you can't improve public services and reduce taxes, so you can't moan both about public services, and taxes. When the great goblin howard took his "special ££££ saving" report into pmq's...
How can I put this nicely.. He didn't win.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes .. compare ratio of administrators to frontline staff in education and the NHS
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not evidence that wastage is increasing. I could just as easily assert that we've always needed more administrative staff but didn't have the funding, and that performance has been held back in the past because of it.
>1) Take the total tax burden not just direct taxation.
Several things .. local taxes ARE tax but are not incl in whitehall comparisons . why do you think they move cost to local govt?
Corporation Tax .. is included in direct tax and has a significant effect on direct tax ratios.
30% UK
32% Germany
34% France & Italy
34.5 Netherlands
Perhaps the apparent lower tax burden is more relevant to companies than individuals?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's very difficult to measure indirect taxation, because it depends very much on the lifestyle of the individual. Indirect taxation (ie including local taxes) can't even be compared using the "hypothetical household". The lower tax burden is definitely not down to just corporation tax because those countries have higher income tax. They also have the same type of "local tax" structure that we do.
[ QUOTE ]
Because of comparative anomalies it is the diection and rate of change that is relevant. Smaller countries do have certain threshold costs so better to compare nations of similar sizes. Anyway who's better off .. a nation with free tertiary education, susidised efficient public transport or a nation with a slightly lower rate and none of the above?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see why direction and rate of change is more important than the actual level. Why does it matter that some of the countries with a higher tax burden are smaller? Yes, there probably are threshold expenses, but we have a lower tax burden than countries that are bigger than us too. Ireland is much smaller, yet it has a much lower tax burden, so I don't see your point.
Fact is, you can't improve public services and reduce taxes, so you can't moan both about public services, and taxes. When the great goblin howard took his "special ££££ saving" report into pmq's...
How can I put this nicely.. He didn't win.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes .. compare ratio of administrators to frontline staff in education and the NHS
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not evidence that wastage is increasing. I could just as easily assert that we've always needed more administrative staff but didn't have the funding, and that performance has been held back in the past because of it.
jimi
Well-known member
Waste of time giving you logical answers mate cos you do'nt understand them.
Well understand this
I'M TOTALLY F~CKED OFF WITH LABOUR
TAX AND SPEND
SPIN
LIES & MORE LIES
IF THERE HAD BEEN A DECENT OPPOSITION THEY'D HAVE BEEN OUT ON THEIR ARSES YEARS AGO
Well understand this
I'M TOTALLY F~CKED OFF WITH LABOUR
TAX AND SPEND
SPIN
LIES & MORE LIES
IF THERE HAD BEEN A DECENT OPPOSITION THEY'D HAVE BEEN OUT ON THEIR ARSES YEARS AGO
BustinAround
New member
Interesting change of tack there.
I do understand your answers, its called a debate, and in debates you challenge points of view.
If you don't understand mine, or aren't man enough to deal with the fact that someone disagrees with you there's no need to throw your rattle out the pram, just grow up a little instead.
I do understand your answers, its called a debate, and in debates you challenge points of view.
If you don't understand mine, or aren't man enough to deal with the fact that someone disagrees with you there's no need to throw your rattle out the pram, just grow up a little instead.
